Adejola v. Amikids Beaufort, Inc.

1

Olatunji Adejola, Plaintiff, v. AMIkids Beaufort, Inc., Defendant.

C. A. No. 9:23-cv-02695-BHH-MHC

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division

October 31, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Molly H. Cherry United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff Olatunji Adejola, initiated this action in this Court alleging various claims arising out of his former employment with Defendant, AMIkids Beaufort, Inc. ECF No. 1. Before the Court is Defendant's partial Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike, ECF No. 8 (“Motion”), filed pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In its Motion, Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claim for violation of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ECF No. 12 at 1. Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiff's demand for a jury trial on the grounds that Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a trial by jury by executing a “Waiver of Jury Trial” agreement. Id. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition, ECF No. 9, and Defendant filed a Reply, ECF No. 10. The Motion is ripe for review.

All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C. This Report and Recommendation is entered for review by the District Judge. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that the Motion be denied.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Accepting the truth of the allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and viewing all inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, see E.I. du Pont de Nemours &amp Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011), the facts, for purposes of ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, are as follows.

Plaintiff began working as a teacher for Defendant in June 2019 and was efficient and effective in his work. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 11. On April 4, 2022, while working for Defendant, Plaintiff took a group of students to Dorm 1, a residential building on Defendant's campus, so that they could use the restroom. Id. at ¶ 12. While Plaintiff was waiting on the students to use the restroom, one student began yelling at Plaintiff and then threw a table and a chair, hitting Plaintiff in the back. Id. Plaintiff immediately called for help and notified Defendant's Executive Director, Matthew Kingdom, of the incident and that he was injured, initiating a workers' compensation claim. Id. at ¶ 13. Plaintiff began seeking medical treatment for his injuries and was out of work from April 5 2022, to April 11, 2022. Id. at ¶ 14. Immediately upon his return, Mr. Kingdom began retaliating against Plaintiff, issuing two baseless write-ups between April and June. Id. Plaintiff suffers from anxiety, which was exacerbated by the unjustified harsh treatment by Mr. Kingdom. Id. at ¶ 15. Between April and June of 2022, Plaintiff repeatedly asked Mr. Kingdom for time off because of his anxiety, but every request was denied. Id.

On or about June 20, 2022, Defendant unexpectedly sent Plaintiff home, accusing him of being clocked out during an unauthorized time. Id. at ¶ 16. Plaintiff was instructed not to return until he heard from Defendant. Id. On or about June 24, 2022, Plaintiff received a letter from Mr. Kingdom stating that Plaintiff was terminated because of “multiple no call/no shows.” Id. at ¶ 17. Plaintiff immediately informed Mr. Kingdom of the falsity of those allegations. Id. As a result, on or about July 5, 2022, Plaintiff received a second letter admitting that the June 24, 2022 letter was an error, but that he was still being terminated “for violating procedure.” Id. at ¶ 18.

Plaintiff asserts that the stated reasons for his termination are pretextual and that he was truly terminated in retaliation for instituting a workers' compensation claim and applying for Family and Medical Leave Act leave. Id. at ¶ 19.

At the time of Plaintiff's termination, he had accrued 148 hours of paid time off (“PTO”), which Plaintiff is still owed. Id. at ¶ 120. Plaintiff emailed numerous requests to Mr. Kingdom and Community and Cultural Relations representative Angie, but Defendant has failed and continues to fail to pay Plaintiff for his PTO. Id.

DISCUSSION

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges four causes of action: (1) retaliatory discharge, in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 41-1-80, for instituting a workers' compensation claim (2) interference with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. (“FMLA”); (3) retaliation in violation of the FMLA; and (4) violation of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act (“SCPWA”). ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also demands a trial by jury. Id.

Defendant moves, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), for dismissal of the SCPWA claim. ECF No. 8 at 1. Defendant also moves, pursuant to Rule 12(f), to strike Plaintiff's jury demand. Id.

I. Motion to Dismiss

A. Rule 12(b)(6) Legal Standard

“The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to test the sufficiency of a complaint.” Williams v. Preiss-Wal Pat III, LLC, 17 F.Supp.3d 528, 531 (D.S.C. 2014); see Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (“A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.”). Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), such that the defendant will have “fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he facts alleged ‘must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level' and must provide ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Robinson v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 551 F.3d 218, 222 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court is required to evaluate the complaint in its entirety, accept the allegations in the pleading as true, and draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d at 440, 448. Moreover, the court must evaluate “the complaint in its entirety, as well as documents attached or incorporated into the complaint.” Id. at 448. The court may consider a document not attached to the complaint, so long as the document “was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint,” and there is no authenticity challenge. Id. (quoting Phillips v. LCI Int'l, Inc., 190 F.3d 609, 618 (4th Cir. 1999)). “A complaint should not be dismissed as long as it provides sufficient detail about the claim to show that the plaintiff has a more-than-conceivable chance of success on the merits.” Goldfarb v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 791 F.3d 500, 511 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

B. Analysis

Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action is a claim for violation of the SCPWA. ECF No. 1 at 4. He alleges that Defendant wrongfully withheld payment for his accrued but unused PTO, which he alleges constitutes “wages” under the SCPWA. Id. at ¶ 38. He alleges that at the time of his termination, he had accrued 148 hours of PTO, for which he is owed payment. Id. at ¶ 20.

In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant does not argue that these allegations fail to state a plausible claim for relief un the SCPWA. Indeed, Defendant acknowledges that “Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that he did not receive payment he was entitled to for his accrued but unused PTO and, therefore, he is now entitled to payment for his unused PTO, plus interest.” ECF No. 81 at 3 (citing ECF No. 1 at 4.) Nonetheless, Defendant argues that the Court should conclude, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff was not entitled to payment for his unused PTO. Id. In support of its argument, Defendant points to language contained in a Team Member Reference Guide (Handbook), a document attached to Defendant's Motion. Id. at 4; See ECF No. 8-3. Although the Handbook is neither mentioned nor cited in the Complaint, Defendant contends that the Handbook and Plaintiff's Acknowledgment of the Handbook (also attached to the Motion) are integral to the Complaint, such that the Court should consider the documents at the motion to dismiss stage. ECF No. 8-1 at n.1; ECF No. 8-4.

Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that the Handbook is an extraneous document that cannot be properly considered on a 12(b)(6) motion. ECF No. 9 at 4. Plaintiff also contends that he should be “afforded an opportunity to review the document in its entirety, question witness[es] about the same and seek other documents (including possibly additional or superseding policies or handbooks) before this Court could be presented with an adequate factual basis to properly determine the issue.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff maintains that because no discovery has occurred in this case, “any argument related to the validity, enforceability or even existence of such a handbook cannot be considered by the Court at this time.” Id.

A court's evaluation of a motion to dismiss generally is limited to a review of the allegations of the complaint itself and any documents attached or incorporated into the complaint. Goines v. Valley Community Servs. Bd. 822 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2016). “Considering extrinsic documents...